Please note: we have been online over ten years, and we want The Trek BBS to continue as a free site. But if you block our ads we are at risk.Please consider unblocking ads for this site - every ad you view counts and helps us pay for the bandwidth that you are using. Thank you for your understanding.

Leonard Nimoy

Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.

Well, yes and no. We will never have handwavium--probably never have warp drive, anti-gravity, etc.

My concern is that folks have this idea that Moore's Law applies to everything. We have actually gone so far with consumer technology that I fear it is sapping real imagination.

I'm thinking Newton would not have completed the Principia had he had the distractions of twitter, blogs, e-mail, etc. Andrew Wiles had to shut himself off from the world to deal with Fermat's famous theorum.

Too many consumer gadgets, not enough respect for infrastructure and heavy industry--that's the real problem.

Worse, we have Republicans making statements about "something called volcano monitoring" wanting to destroye the Department of Energy, etc. Everywhere--not just at NASA--is this move by Ayn Rand types to destroy infrastructure.

Everything is getting larger and more expensive. Large Hadron, the Magellan Giant telescope, etc. This is not a bad thing--and people need to understand the need for growth of these systems. Here is a nice book on the subject:

But modern cars are already wide open to hacking, allowing attackers to take over the engine control, brakes, and in some cases the steering. Some think the NSA cyber warfare branch is already doing this. A clever foreign attack could kill or injure millions of drivers simultaneously when they all slam into each other.

We should be building robustness instead of adding even bigger vulnerabilities.

Modern cars aren't "wide open to hacking", but people have demonstrated the ability to take over a car and control the engine, brakes, shifting, etc. The difficulty in doing so, however, is that direct physical access to the car was required. In order to do it, the hacker had to be plugged into the OBDII port; it wasn't done wirelessly.

I like the idea of driverless cars because of the potential to increase travel efficiency, decrease time, decrease accidents, etc. However, in order to achieve this, cars will need to be able to either (1) communicate with others in the near vicinity, or (2) be controlled by some central system coordinating the actions off all the cars in a certain area. Either one requires some sort of wireless communication system that will open the cars to hacking. Of necessity, the same system that controls the brakes, engine, steering, etc. will have to be connected to that communication system.

Even if the systems were made to be very robust and could handle any system malfunction/road hazard/physical breakdown/etc., it would never be hack-proof.

__________________
Computers are like the God of the Old Testament: lots of rules and no mercy.

Driverless cars scare the shit out of me. Technology fails sometimes, and when that happens, humans need to be able to step in and take control. Drivers already don't pay enough attention to the road! I can only imagine how much less they'll be paying attention when they're even not responsible for driving.

In 2010 there were an estimated 5 + million with a capital M car accidents of which ~ 32,000 people were killed in the US. This makes cars IMO the biggest serial killer in America and the people who kill who are driving them.

If automation would even half that number - and I believe it could do even much better than that - you'd think the public would overwhemingly support the driverless car and the technology necessary to run it - occassional failure or not.

__________________
On the continent of wild endeavour in the mountains of solace and solitude there stood the citadel of the time lords, the oldest and most mighty race in the universe looking down on the galaxies below sworn never to interfere only to watch.

However, in order to achieve this, cars will need to be able to either (1) communicate with others in the near vicinity, or (2) be controlled by some central system coordinating the actions off all the cars in a certain area.

I've seen no indication that this kind of communication or central control is necessary. Google has been operating their driverless cars on public roads in real life traffic for (I think) a few years now. I would say any system predicated on central control or mutual communication (beyond what their sensors can show) is both premature optimization and introduction of unnecessary failure points.

Each car should be self-contained and autonomous, responding to the conditions around it without any illusions that it has any control over or communication with anything else on the road.

__________________Not affiliated with those other white knights. I'm the good kind.I has a blag.

Obviously you'd have to study the problem in more detail. But one big difference off the top of my head is the UK doesn't have nearly the elaborate freeway system the US has and I'd imagine speed coupled with how our freeways are constructed [some having 10 lanes in each direction] contributes to that.

1. Distracted driving. Well, computers don't get "distracted."
2. Driver fatigue. Computers also don't get tired!
3. Drunk driving. Or drunk.
4. Speeding. Self-driving cars could potentially go faster than is safe for humans, but would be programmed never to go faster than conditions permit be done safely.
5. Aggressive driving. Computers don't get mad, either.
6. Weather. A self-driving system would behave more conservatively in bad weather conditions, and it would have more data (such as infrared) to work with.

publiusr wrote:

Now the legal questions. Who gets sued if my driverless car hits someone? I only get a ticket if, say, I don't have my car serviced on time?

That has yet to be sorted out, but manufacturers should be liable for any defects, while the owner is liable if they aren't doing proper maintenance.

Let me also give you two scenarios:

Let's say I have been drinking a little bit, get behind the wheel of a car, and drive a bit too fast, say, through a school zone. (something I don't do BTW)

I do look around, and I see a young child chasing a ball down a hill. The ball disappears between two parked cars.

There is no obstruction yet, but I know what is going to happen, In a moment, the ball will appear in front of me, and a second or two later, so will the child.

So I apply the brake in anticipation. Lo and behold, the child jumps out in front of me, and he goes home safe after I get his attention with a horn blast.

Same scenario, but with a driverless car.

It can never be drunk, always obeys all laws, never speeds. But it cannot anticipate. It uses sensors, even visual sensors the way a blind man uses a stick.

Machines image, people see.

Such motion can be detected with greater accuracy and anticipation than a human. The car would notice there's a problem before you would. (In fact, there are new cars which will sense impending collisions with pedestrians and stop immediately to avoid them.)

I am in the car reading my morning (paper?) newstablet. The car is in the school zone. It can sense no obstruction. Then the ball and boy emerge right in front of it--and the tyke is struck.

So which was safer then, a drunk driver who anticipates, or a perfect reaction time machine with no common sense? In this case, the drunk driver is actually safer.

The self-driving car is safer because it wouldn't hit the kid. Also, if you think a drunk barreling through a school zone is going to hit the brakes fast enough to avoid hurting anyone, I don't think you get drunk that much. The scenario you describe far, far more often ends with the drunk hitting the kid and not even noticing, on account of being totally shitfaced.

__________________Not affiliated with those other white knights. I'm the good kind.I has a blag.

However, in order to achieve this, cars will need to be able to either (1) communicate with others in the near vicinity, or (2) be controlled by some central system coordinating the actions off all the cars in a certain area.

I've seen no indication that this kind of communication or central control is necessary. Google has been operating their driverless cars on public roads in real life traffic for (I think) a few years now. I would say any system predicated on central control or mutual communication (beyond what their sensors can show) is both premature optimization and introduction of unnecessary failure points.

Each car should be self-contained and autonomous, responding to the conditions around it without any illusions that it has any control over or communication with anything else on the road.

To get the kind of real efficiency improvements that self-driving cars are capable of, coordination is absolutely necessary. If each car operates autonomously, it has to go slow enough and keep enough distance from other vehicles that it can react appropriately and safely in situations where it doesn't know what the other vehicles are going to do until the other vehicles actually start doing something. If the vehicles communicate with each other, they can safely cruise along at much higher speeds with only inches or perhaps a few feet between them, dramatically decreasing travel times, increasing road capacity, and potentially reducing fuel usage by reducing wind resistance.

__________________
Computers are like the God of the Old Testament: lots of rules and no mercy.

The trucking industry I'm sure sees a huge upside to any self driving technology. I'm surprised they haven't invested more heavily in the technology. No more driver fatigue and there are a many other efficiences for the industry.

The trucking industry I'm sure sees a huge upside to any self driving technology. I'm surprised they haven't invested more heavily in the technology. No more driver fatigue and there are a many other efficiences for the industry.

All those goods and products on the back of a driverless truck? bandits will have a field day.

Look at the world in 1900. Now look at the world in 2000. Think we did pretty well in the technological/scientific progress game, don't you? I'm gonna guess that 2100 is going to look just as alien to us as 2000 would to someone from 1900.

The trucking industry I'm sure sees a huge upside to any self driving technology. I'm surprised they haven't invested more heavily in the technology. No more driver fatigue and there are a many other efficiences for the industry.

Well, I would imagine truck drivers might not like the idea of putting out of a job.

__________________Not affiliated with those other white knights. I'm the good kind.I has a blag.